INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A person cannot make another bail application for the same accused within 30 days without the permission of a judge.
SECTION WORDING
521(9) Where an application under this section or section 520 has been heard, a further or other application under this section or section 520 shall not be made with respect to the same accused, except with leave of a judge, prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the decision of the judge who heard the previous application.
EXPLANATION
Section 521(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out a procedural rule that applies to applications that are made for the release of accused persons from custody pending their trial. This section limits the ability of a person to make multiple applications for release under section 520 or section 521 of the Criminal Code. Once an application has been heard, a person cannot make a further or other application for release with respect to the same accused, unless they receive leave from a judge. This requirement prevents the accused from repeatedly making applications for release, which could unduly burden the court and cause delays in the trial process. The requirement for leave also ensures that any subsequent applications are made for valid reasons and on a proper basis. This promotes fairness and consistency in the application of the law, and helps to prevent abuse of the court process. The thirty-day time limit ensures that the court is not inundated with successive applications, and also provides a period of stability for the accused, their counsel, and the Crown to prepare for trial. It also helps to prevent unnecessary disruption to the lives of those involved in the court process and to the community as a whole. Overall, section 521(9) is an important provision that promotes efficiency, fairness, and the smooth operation of the criminal justice system.
COMMENTARY
Section 521(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada imposes a restriction on the frequency with which an accused person can apply for bail, particularly after a previous application has been heard. The section provides that if an application has been made under section 520 or 521 and has been heard, no further application can be made with respect to the same accused, except with leave of a judge, prior to thirty days after the date of the decision of the judge who heard the previous application. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the abuse of the bail process, where an accused person is simply making repeated applications for bail without significant change in circumstances. This is important because having an accused person released on bail may have serious implications on public safety, and the credibility of the justice system. If the accused has been granted bail with the same grounds previously, it becomes important to ascertain if something significant has changed about their situation, and if granting bail again would be in the interest of justice. The restriction in Section 521(9) also serves as a means of efficiently managing court resources. Processing multiple bail applications from the same accused in a short period may strain resources and result in undue delays that can affect not only the case of the accused but also the administration of justice. Additionally, it reduces the repetitive nature of identical bail applications that may be a result of undue pressure from the accused and their defense team. However, Section 521(9) does not limit the power of the judiciary to use discretion when deciding whether an accused should be granted leave to make a subsequent bail application before the expiry of the required 30-day period. The section leaves room for exceptional circumstances that may warrant early re-application for bail and ensures that a judge can exercise discretion in such cases. In essence, Section 521(9) seeks to maintain the credibility of the bail system in the Canadian justice system by limiting the frequency of bail applications by an accused person. Although exceptions can be made when justified, the restriction ensures that an accused person cannot abuse the bail process, and the court system can present fair justice to all parties involved. Finally, the section emphasizes the significance of the timely, just, and effective administration of justice.
STRATEGY
Section 521(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada places a restriction on defendants seeking bail through an application under section 520. Essentially, it prevents a defendant from continually making applications for bail with respect to the same charges. This provision puts some strategic considerations into play when dealing with bail applications. In this article, we'll discuss some of these strategic considerations and the strategies that could be employed to deal with them. The first strategic consideration is timing. The provision restricts a defendant from making an application for bail under section 520 within thirty days of a previous decision. Therefore, timing is critical when deciding when to make a bail application and whether or not to seek leave to make a second application. Defendants need to decide whether a current bail application is worth making, especially if they are unlikely to be successful. It is often better to wait until there is new evidence or a material change in circumstances that could strengthen a subsequent application. Defendants can also consider the type of hearing they want to apply for, as the provision applies to both summary and indictable bail hearings. The second strategic consideration is judicial discretion. Although the provision restricts consecutive applications, judges have the discretion to allow further applications. Therefore, defendants need to weigh up the likelihood of a successful application when considering whether to seek leave to make a subsequent bail application. Factors that judges may consider when determining whether to grant leave include whether there is new evidence that was not available at the time of the previous application and whether there is a material change in circumstances. The third strategic consideration is the need to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances. When considering whether to seek leave to make a second bail application, a defendant must consider whether there has been a significant change in circumstances. A defendant may incur the displeasure of the judge if they attempt to make an application that is overly similar to a previous one without demonstrating a change in circumstances. Therefore, it is essential to consider whether there is anything new that can be offered to support the subsequent application. The fourth strategic consideration is the need for good advocacy. Seeking leave of the court to bring a second bail application requires a robust advocacy strategy. Defence counsel should provide detailed submissions and arguments that demonstrate why bail should be granted, highlighting any new evidence or material change in circumstances. A persuasive and compelling submission or argument can increase the likelihood of a judge allowing a subsequent application. The fifth strategic consideration is the potential risk to the defendant if bail is not granted. Defendants need to weigh up the consequences of being denied bail and remaining in custody. This is one of the most critical strategic considerations when deciding whether to seek leave to make a subsequent bail application. Defendants must consider the impact that remaining in custody may have on their case, including the effect it may have on their defense as they may find it more challenging to gather evidence while in custody for an extended period. In conclusion, there are many strategic considerations that need to be taken into account when dealing with section 521(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Beyond timing and identifying a material change in circumstances, good advocacy, and a clear understanding of the risk of remaining in custody need consideration. The strategies employed in dealing with this section ultimately depend on individual circumstances. Defence counsel would do well to consider the best approach to bail and what the overall outcome they seek to achieve for their client is.